After 9+ years, I am selling this site that is very well established. I feel the site is best suited for those who practice in defending homes i.e. attorney(s)/forensic auditors/debt consultants/non-profit/ etc.. Ultimately, I would like to find 1 or a group of attorneys that might want to pool in together from across the country. 1,000’s of hours have been carefully dedicated to what the site has grown to become today and for its historical participation of exposing the truth behind massive fraudulent paperwork.

Serious inquiries only. I will consider staying on to continue managing the website.

It probably won’t include “1-800-ROBO,” but big banks are preparing to launch a toll-free number to find consumers harmed by problems in foreclosure processing.

The effort to find consumers is an outgrowth of the controversy over so-called robo-signing and other problematic foreclosure practices. Last spring, regulators ordered major banks and thrifts to overhaul their foreclosure practices, finding that 14 lenders filed foreclosures with improper documentation and lacked sufficient staff to properly handle distressed borrowers. The banks have now picked independent consultants to identify any borrowers who were harmed by foreclosure-processing problems.

2. Mortgage servicers routinely appear in this Court seeking relief from the automatic stay or in opposition to proposed chapter 13 plans. The Mortgage servicers appear through counsel who announce their appearance on behalf of those mortgage servicers.

3. But, unbeknownst to this Court, those counsel often answer not to the mortgage
servicers on whose behalf they appear, rather these counsel answer to an undisclosed
middleman such as the Defendants.

4. Defendants provide what is known in the mortgage-servicing industry as default
servicing. Loans which are subject to default servicing include loans which may be
subject to foreclosure and loans which are in bankruptcy.

5. Some of the services which are provided by default servicers such as the Defendants
include: 1) executing documents on behalf of the original servicer; 2) ordering and
providing broker price opinions; 3) track and provide fees for payoffs and
refinancings, and; 4) provide centralized billing to vendors.

6. An additional function of default servicing is the identification and retention of legal
services which may be necessary for any particular mortgage in default, e.g. noticing
and posting a property for foreclosure or seeking relief from the automatic stay in a
bankruptcy proceeding.

7. In managing the performance of the legal services for their mortgage servicing
clients, Defendants require law firms to execute a “Network Agreement,” which
details the agreement for services between the Defendants and the particular law firm.

8. The claims covered in this Complaint relate to the illegal fixing of fees in the
bankruptcy context and the requirement that law firms that execute the “Network
Agreement” to kickback a contractual prearranged fixed portion of their attorney fees
to the Defendant.

With no legal training, Zeenat Ali, 23, has been doing battle in court, winning judgments against the bank and two other companies mainly on procedural grounds.

By E. Scott Reckard, Los Angeles Times

August 5, 2010

As foreclosure fights rage in the nation’s courts, the battle over Shahida and Ather Ali’s house in Diamond Bar looks like a classic mismatch.

In one corner, weighing in at $2.5 trillion in assets, sits Deutsche Bank, which is attempting to evict the Alis from their home of 24 years.

In the other is Zeenat Ali, the couple’s diminutive 23-year-old daughter, who dropped out of medical school and sued Deutsche Bank after it foreclosed on the property. Hoping to reclaim title for her parents, Ali has spent half a year litigating in state and federal courts without the help of a lawyer. And though she has no formal legal training, the soft-voiced, 120-pound bantam is more than holding her own.

Using online legal filings as models, she has staved off the eviction and even turned the tables, winning judgments that enabled her to seek $1.7 billion from Deutsche Bank and two other financial firms involved in the deal, Downey Savings and Central Mortgage Co. All three declined to comment on her suit, filed in March in Los Angeles County Superior Court in Pomona. It accuses them of fraud, botching foreclosure paperwork and violating laws requiring lenders to seek alternatives before they put delinquent borrowers out on the street.

Ali’s victories so far have been mainly procedural. Experts say she stands little chance of winning a large damage award. And her parents are likely to lose their home.

Still, legal veterans have been impressed by the smarts and tenacity of the neophyte with the long dark hair and the focused gaze. Ali’s occasionally wavering voice belies exacting preparation and a formidable resolve.

The banks have learned not to underestimate her. In a challenge to her budding legal skills, they sought in May to move her lawsuit to federal court in Los Angeles, where they thought they’d have an easier go of it. Ali responded with 170 pages of legal filings. After reviewing them, U.S. District Judge Gary Feess sided with Ali and last month sent the case back to Pomona Superior.

It was a victory that Elizabeth Mann, chairwoman of the executive committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Assn.’s litigation section, called “remarkable.”

April 27, 2010, 6:39AM

Grand Rapids Press File PhotoRick and Sherry Rought of Gowen. GRAND RAPIDS — Rick and Sherry Rought of Gowen paid cash for the old house, a $14,000 fixer-upper, for their daughter, Hannah, while she attended Ferris State University.

Seven months later, after the couple started repairs and moved in furniture, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. foreclosed, hired a company to “trash out” the Roughts’ belongings, and changed locks and turned off utilities, according to a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court.

They believe that Deutsche, as trustee of Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., didn’t realize the house, repossessed in 2006, was not subject to foreclosure.

It is a nightmare that has happened across the nation as the economy tanked, the couple’s attorney, Carlin Phillips, said at a press conference.

“It’s like the Wild West right now in the foreclosure industry,” he said.

Deutsche, however, said it played no role in the dispute, and that the alleged actions came under the purview of American Home Mortgage Serving, which took over service of the loan from Ameriquest.

Deutsche acts as a trustee and has an administrative role in such cases, but has “no beneficial ownership stake or interest in the underlying mortgage loans,” spokesman John Gallagher said.

The Duval County Clerk’s Office has offered online bidding for foreclosed properties for some time, and now Jacksonville-based Lender Processing Services is bringing bank-foreclosures all over the U.S. online.

Through its LPSAuctions.com Web site, LPS is to open bidding on single-family homes, condominiums and town homes from Coral Springs to Tacoma, Wash. The bid deadline for the homes listed in the “Spring Clearance” auction on the site is May 10.

So now it’s official they have they’re hands in all Real Estate! My question is how…why would any state permit them to sell anything if they are under the scope of the FEDS?? Take a look below.

I’d like to see the paper work…If anyone has the address I’d like to investigate how this made it to where it was…Something much deeper than this story!!!

Posted: 10 Apr 2010 07:29 AM PDT

Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) has inadvertently foreclosed on and sold a home in Jackson County, Georgia, where the two homeowners were up-to-date on their mortgage payment, according to a report from Fox’s Atlanta Affiliate.

“On Tuesday, my husband was working on his truck. A guy came over to him, I think, and shook his hand and said, ‘Hi, I just bought this house.’ [My husband was] thinking to himself, ‘Yeah right, you’re joking,’” said Rani Achaibar, the homeowner whose house was auctioned off.

Without the knowledge of the Achaibars, Bank of America auctioned off their home at the Jackson County courthouse. The family said that their house, worth $500,000 somehow made it onto a foreclosure list.

“He had the paperwork in his hand and I said, ‘Oh my gosh!’ So sat down, got Bank of America on the phone right away, verified, not delinquent, but didn’t say there was a mistake,” recalled Achaibar.

The Achaibars’ mortgage statements showed that their monthly payments had been maid on time, but the Achaibars have said that they have had a difficult time getting answers from the bank.

“They sold my house overnight and they need to fix this fast,” said Achaibar.

A representative for Bank of America said, “It appears that a mistake has been made in this case. We are working diligently to research and rectify the situation as quickly as possible. We apologize to the Achaibar family for this unfortunate mistake.”

“Thank God it was a nice person who bought our house or he probably would have put us out,” said Achaibar.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the attorneys at Ice Legal may be the most aggressive and hard charging Foreclosure Fraud Fighters in Florida. When this whole system comes crashing down and when judges and the Florida Supreme Court put an end to the systemic abuses of the court process being perpetrated by the foreclosure mills, the attorneys at Ice Legal will rightly take their fair share of the credit.

Attached here is a must read Motion along with a copy of a transcript from a hearing held in a Volusia County Courtroom. The Motion lays out a very disturbing set of allegations…

This is a foreclosure action filed by WELLS FARGO BANK, NA (the “BANK”). The BANK is represented by Florida Default Law Group, P.L. (“FDLG”). On behalf of the BANK in this case, and on behalf of other clients in other cases, FDLG filed affidavits to establish that the attorneys’ fees it was allegedly paid were reasonable. The affidavits purport to have been executed by Lisa Cullaro, the appointed expert on attorneys’ fees. The notary who allegedly administered the expert’s oath and vouched for her signature was Erin Cullaro, a former employee of FDLG and now an Assistant Attorney General in the Economic Crimes Division of the Office of the Attorney General.

Not only was Erin just a former employee, she was one of the lead counsel for Michael Echeverria, the owner of FDLG (Florida Default Law Group)

Pay attention or get an (F) for FORECLOSURE!

Nye Lavalle Said:

This may sound crude, but it’s the only analogy that’s easy for people and judges to understand.

A woman goes to a party or is promiscuous and sleeps with 6 men in a night or week. The following week she is pregnant. There is one man who is the best looking, strongest, best shape and richest of them all, so she wants him to be the father. Two other men who find out she’s pregnant claim paternity. NOW, before the age of DNA and computers and all, it was simply someone’s word and testimony against another.

However, with the advent o DNA testing and sequencing genes, we can tell who the father is. So, a judge would understand the following:

Judge, this has been a very promiscuous note. It’s gotten around (transfered, pledged, sold, assigned) quite a bit and it never used protection (recording in public records and indorsing note). After being with at least a dozen different partners, our note is now pregnant (ripe for pay off/liquidation).

The MOM (MERS, servicers) says Daddy #1 is the daddy, but the baby (original note) has blond hair and blue eyes judge and the mom and claimed dad are both dark hair and dark eyes so we’re suspicious.

Two dark hair and brown eyes men come forward and state: Judge we both slept with this woman during the time she claimed to be pregnant. Now, 3 different men have potential paternity.

NOW, THE ONLY WAY you can determine who the father (holder in due course) is to take blood samples (accounting, servicing, custody, and investor reports and data) from EACH MAN (servicer//transferee etc..) to see who’s DNA it was and all the others to determine the dad and who owes child support.

Unless you do the DNA (forensic analyses of all docs and records), it doesn;t matter what the bank lawyers, or servicers say, it what really transpired here!

Without seeing where that NOTE (not mortgage) came on and off anyones books; how it was endorsed and when; who has possession and custody and who negotiated the note and PAID for it, you’ll never be able to answer the age old question, “WHO’S YOUR DADDY?”

The Client Assistance program is called the Attorney Consumer Assistance Program (ACAP). ACAP is the department that handles client complaints and even can resolve some problems before a complaint is filed. Call the ACAP Hotline – 866/352-0707.

If any of you have any other states please feel free to link to comments and note the STATE.

Why do mortgage companies continue to buy defaulted loans where the borrowers are either dilinquent or stopped making payments completely? For those who also want to know as to why the banks do not want to work with you. Well this is why…

Yup! You heard it right X’s 2…I feel it’s going to be one of the great defense attorney’s in Florida that will bring down the MILL’s who are destroying families. Mark my words watch for Jeff Barnes, Matt Weidner, Greg Clark, George Gingo and Ice Legal… Baby! Many other…Lets not forget the attorney who is diligently uncovering assignment fraud time after time Lynn Szymoniak ESQ.

FDN has obtained another borrower victory in Florida by having a summary judgment of foreclosure vacated. The Judge in the Brevard County Circuit Court has entered an Order, on motion of the borrower which was prepared, filed, and argued in person by Jeff Barnes, Esq., vacating and setting aside a Final Summary Judgment of Foreclosure and enjoining any foreclosure sale. The Motion set forth that the Judgment was void as there was no proof of legal standing.

The Complaint, filed by the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., alleged that the Plaintiff was the holder and owner of the note and mortgage by an assignment “to be filed”. No such assignment was ever filed, and thus Plaintiff Deutsche Bank fraudulently represented to the Court that it had proper legal standing to foreclose when in reality it did not. The threshold hurdle of proof of legal standing to foreclose under Florida law was recently highlighted by the Florida Second District Court of Appeal in the BAC Funding decision which was recently discussed on this website.

The same day that the hearing took place on the Brevard County Motion, FDN attorney Jeff Barnes, Esq. was presented with yet another case filed by the same attorney from the Stern law office for the same client (Deutsche Bank as “Trustee” of a securitized mortgage loan trust) with the same problem (no assignment or proof of VALID ownership of the Note and Mortgage) but filed in Manatee County, Florida with a summary judgment having been entered in favor of Deutsche Bank despite no assignment ever having been filed. A Motion has thus been filed to seek vacatur of the Stern Summary Judgment entered in this separate proceeding.

FDN litigates foreclosure cases throughout the State of Florida as well as in 27 other states, assisted by local counsel. The consistent pattern which is emerging, as to Deutsche Bank, is a misrepresentation of ownership of the Note and Mortgage (or “Deed of Trust” as it is called in non-judicial states other than Georgia, which terms the instrument a “Security Deed”); lack of valid ownership interest in these instruments and the rights attendant thereto; and a failure to produce competent evidence of any ownership (meaning that meritless MERS assignments are not “competent”). This pattern is present in numerous states with different law Firms. Deutsche Bank thus continues to be an entity whose representations must be carefully examined in any foreclosure attempt, because there is a high probability that one or more of its representations are false.

Judge Buford in Bankruptcy Court has no problem seeing the real issues. Here he is again stating that MERS has no standing and that MERS is confused as to whether it is acting in is own behalf or as agent for the note holder. He further makes it clear that the loan is not secured by the real property where MERS is the “nominee.” Since MERS admits, indeed advertises it will never make a claim to ownership of the note (otherwise nobody would use their service) there is absolutely no basis under law or equity in any court where it should be allowed to foreclose.

But they have done exactly that. So now that we know all those foreclosures were done illegally not for some procedural reason, but because MERS is not a creditor, what does that do to the hundreds of thousands of foreclosure sales that took place using MERS as “nominee” as the base of the chain. The answer, as anyone with knowledge of property law will tell you, is that the foreclosure sale is void, not voidable.

That in turn means that whoever owned it before the “sale” still owns it. Which of course means in most cases that there are hundreds of thousands of people who were homeowners that still own the property that was “foreclosed.” It also means, if the house is empty that they have the right to re-enter it. So you see, it is on this simple fact and basic black letter law that the entire foreclosure mess is proved to be an illusion. There is no mess. There is just a lot of paper that doesn’t mean anything.

If a Judge signed an order setting the sale date (as opposed to lifting the stay) THEN it is highly probable that in order to regain possession of the house you would need to file a quiet title action and quite possibly an action for damages.

2. MERS’s Authority to Operate in CaliforniaThe FAC fleetingly alleges that “MERS [is] not registered to dobusiness in California.” FAC ¶ 9. While MERS’s registrationstatus receives no other mention in the complaint, plaintiff’sopposition memorandum purports to support several of plaintiff’sclaims with this allegation, and defendant’s reply discusses iton the merits. The court therefore discusses this issue here.The California Corporations Code requires entities that“transact[] intrastate business” in California to acquire a“certificate of qualification” from the California Secretary ofState. Cal. Corp. Code § 2105(a). MERS argues that its activitiesfall within exceptions to the statutory definition of transactingintrastate business, such that these requirement does not apply.See Cal. Corp. Code § 191. It is not clear to the court thatMERS’s activity is exempt.Page 23MERS primarily relies on Cal. Corp. Code § 191(d)(3). Cal.Corp. Code § 191(d) enumerates various actions that do nottrigger the registration requirement when performed by “anyforeign lending institution.” Because neither the FAC nor theexhibits indicate that MERS is such an institution, MERS cannotprotect itself under this exemption at this stage. The statutedefines “foreign lending institution” as “including, but notlimited to: [i] any foreign banking corporation, [ii] any foreigncorporation all of the capital stock of which is owned by one ormore foreign banking corporations, [iii] any foreign savings andloan association, [iv] any foreign insurance company or [v] anyforeign corporation or association authorized by its charter toinvest in loans secured by real and personal property[.]” Cal.Corp. Code § 191(d). Neither any published California decisionnor any federal decision has interpreted these terms. Becauseplaintiff alleges that MERS does not itself invest in loans orlend money, it appears that [i], [iii], and [v] do not apply.MERS does not claim to be an insurance company under [ii].Finally, it is certainly plausible that not all of MERS’s ownersare foreign corporations. At this stage of litigation, the courtcannot conclude that MERS falls within any of the five enumeratedexamples of “foreign lending institutions,” and the courtdeclines to address sua sponte whether MERS otherwise satisfiessubsection (d).Corp. Code § 191(d). Neither any published California decisionnor any federal decision has interpreted these terms. Becauseplaintiff alleges that MERS does not itself invest in loans orlend money, it appears that [i], [iii], and [v] do not apply.MERS does not claim to be an insurance company under [ii].Finally, it is certainly plausible that not all of MERS’s ownersare foreign corporations. At this stage of litigation, the courtcannot conclude that MERS falls within any of the five enumeratedexamples of “foreign lending institutions,” and the courtdeclines to address sua sponte whether MERS otherwise satisfiessubsection (d).Defendants also invoke a second exemption, Cal. Corp. Code§ 191(c)(7). While section 191(c) is not restricted to “lendinginstitutions,” MERS’s acts do not fall into the categoriesPage 24enumerated under the section, including subsection (c)(7).Plaintiff alleges that MERS directed the trustee to initiatenonjudicialforeclosure on the property. Section 191(c)(7)provides that “[c]reating evidences of debt or mortgages, liensor security interests on real or personal property” is notintrastate business activity. Although this language isunexplained, directing the trustee to initiate foreclosureproceedings appears to be more than merely creating evidence of amortgage. This is supported by the fact that a separate statutorysection, § 191(d)(3) (which MERS cannot invoke at this time, seesupra), exempts “the enforcement of any loans by trustee’s sale,judicial process or deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise.”Interpreting section (c)(7) to include these activities wouldrender (d)(3) surplusage, and such interpretations of Californiastatutes are disfavored under California law. People v. Arias,45 Cal. 4th 169, 180 (2008), Hughes v. Bd. of ArchitecturalExaminers, 17 Cal. 4th 763, 775 (1998). Accordingly,section 191(c)(7) does not exempt MERS’s activity.[fn12]For these reasons, plaintiff’s argument that MERS has actedPage 25in violation of Cal. Corp. Code § 2105(a) is plausible, andcannot be rejected at this stage in the litigation.3. Whether MERS Has Acted UltraViresPlaintiff separately argues that MERS has acted in violation ofits own “terms and conditions.” These “terms” allegedly providethatMERS shall serve as mortgagee of record with respect toall such mortgage loans solely as a nominee, in anadministrative capacity, for the beneficial owner orowners thereof from time to time. MERS shall have norights whatsoever to any payments made on account ofsuch mortgage loans, to any servicing rights related tosuch mortgage loans, or to any mortgaged propertiessecuring such mortgage loans. MERS agrees not to assertany rights (other than rights specified in theGoverning Documents) with respect to such mortgageloans or mortgaged properties. References herein to“mortgage(s)” and “mortgagee of record” shall includedeed(s) of trust and beneficiary under a deed of trustand any other form of security instrument underapplicable state law.”FAC ¶ 10. The FAC does not specify the source of these “terms andconditions.” Plaintiff’s opposition memorandum states that theyare taken from MERS’s corporate charter, implying that an actionin violation thereof would be ultra vires. Opp’n at 4. Plaintiffthen alleges that these terms do not permit MERS to “act as anominee or beneficiary of any of the Defendants.” FAC ¶ 32.However, the terms explicitly permit MERS to act as nominee.Plaintiff has not alleged a violation of these terms.4. Defendants’ Authority to ForecloseAnother theme underlying many of plaintiff’s claims is thatdefendants have attempted to foreclose or are foreclosing on thePage 26property without satisfying the requirements for doing so.Plaintiff argues that foreclosure is barred because no defendantis a person entitled to enforce the deed of trust under theCalifornia Commercial Code and because defendants failed to issuea renewed notice of default after the initial trustee’s sale was4. Defendants’ Authority to ForecloseAnother theme underlying many of plaintiff’s claims is thatdefendants have attempted to foreclose or are foreclosing on thePage 26property without satisfying the requirements for doing so.Plaintiff argues that foreclosure is barred because no defendantis a person entitled to enforce the deed of trust under theCalifornia Commercial Code and because defendants failed to issuea renewed notice of default after the initial trustee’s sale wasrescinded.

Listen carefully it’s not only the sub-prime …it’s now those who called everyone in foreclosure a dead beat. Those “who” were living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones because one might come bouncing back to shatter. We are now in this together so I welcome you with open arms and into a hug because I know you will need one.

As a lot of you have come to realize LOAN MODIFICATIONS have not solved anyone’s problems but to put more money into the bank’s pockets and have the homeowner eventually wind up back where they were before the loan mod, but this time with the bank arguing that although they tried to help the homeowner the homeowner fell behind again, therefore they need to finish the foreclosure. The bank also argues that if they were any discrepancies or infractions on the original loan, well by the homeowner agreeing to a LOAN MODIFICATION the original loan is null and void and the terms on the loan modifications are in effect. They also argue that the homeowner basically signed away their rights to the original loan and are bound by the loan mod terms. However the bank still maintains theirs and will seek to foreclose on the homeowner. Well, the judges are beginning to see what we have been saying all along. BE AWARE if fraud was committed in the original loan ti does not make it go away because the bank gave the homeowner a loan modification and it puts the homeowner in a position to seek legal and financial compensation from the bank. GOD BLESS
Here is the detail info:
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2634-08T2

This is why getting a Forensic Loan Audit is much needed. This is not something an amateur should attempt leave this to the professionals who have the keen eye for understanding complexities to address all applicable regulatory compliance requirements as well as any Federal and State violations.

For a brief period of time in the history of courts in Florida, lawyers engaged in a widespread and pervasive practice of submitting blatantly false evidence in courts. This period of time began roughly when the foreclosure crisis moved from the mortgage and lending industries and into Florida courts.

Now that judges and courts have become aware of just how pervasive this practice was, individual efforts on the part of judges and systemic rule changes implemented by the Florida Supreme Court should signal the end of this era. An article that appeared in the Sarasota Tribune and can be viewed here quotes a local judge, Robert Bennett from Sarasota who recently had one of his opinions reversed by the Second District Court of Appeals. (Verizzo v. Bank of New York) Found here

In the article, the good judge admits that his initial ruling…in favor of the bank was incorrect. The decision was a reflection of a judicial system that was totally overwhelmed by problems caused by the mortgage and lending institutions….they caused the problems then dumped their problems in the laps of absurdly understaffed courts and judges then said, “Here, you fix the mess we’ve created!”

It’s taken a while to identify the issues and to grasp the scope of the problem, but now that judges and court systems are aware that they were taken advantage of, the tide has shifted. New rules and new cases, both from appellate courts and from sister courts, have made judges all over aware of the issues such that they are no longer willing to look the other way and sign off granting sale….when asked how he thinks Plaintiff’s attorneys will comply, Chief Judge Lee Hayworth (long a critic of sloppy Plaintiff practice) had this to say:

“I’m looking forward to see how they do comply,” Haworth said. “Their license could be on the line.”

These “Black Deeds”, collectively, are proof that the notaries, witnesses, and signatories on each and every like assignment of mortgage is suspect at best; created as purely fabricated malarkey at worst. Professionals are starting to surmise that all of these mortgage assignments magically produced, presto-chango, to ram another foreclosure through “the system” are not credible evidence upon which the transfer of property, dispensation of justice, and the roof over a family’s head should rest.

And, then, here ya’ go: another colleague found a mortgage assignment back-dated four years in order to assign property two years hence. Being no math whiz, would someone please clarify if that is a net back-dating of two years? Perhaps it’s a cumulative formula, adding the 4 years to 2 years, makes the “off dating” 6 years? I dunno! How’s that really work? Sounds like an episode of Beat The Clock!

This is no mere document failure! Please. Call it what it is: foreclosures upon millions of families, evicted from their homes by financial entities with no more rights to take those homes than have you or I. When faced with this fact, the financial entities are creating, fabricating (aka MAKING UP) the “evidence” to prove that they have the
right to take a family’s home and throw them with all their worldly
possessions into the street! Where are the investors who really put up the money for these home loans? They must be singing the blues to see some interloper foreclose a million times over and keep the proceeds from the post-foreclosure sale. Welcome to America! Waive to the Statue of Liberty on your way in. Breathe in that democratic process air we’ve prided ourselves on for lo these 233 years.

There are millions upon millions of families being evicted onto the streets, many with no alternative housing options. It’s not so easy to find a job in the best of circumstances today. Ever tried to find and/or hold down a job without a fixed address? How ’bout the children, in the middle of their school year? What about the beloved pets of foreclosure, fully members of the newly homeless family? Ever tried to find emergency shelter or housing with a deeply loved animal or two? What of the elderly who do not have the remaining lifespan to recover from the terrible financial and personal blow and may face their remaining “golden years” begging for scarce, dwindling social-net resources. What of the disabled, those of us living in America who, without dramatic rescue, are too ill and infirm to ever hope to again live independently under cover.

I may or may not return here to add more…………I’m too distraught to continue writing of my country’s egregious willful complicity in these relentless evictions and property confiscation. My heart and soul start to rupture past the point of repair when I think of how America is treating it’s citizenry, including the weakest of us all; based on a million-fold fraudulent transactions from mortgage origination well past post-foreclosure sale.

Let’s move on in a more wickedly delicious track, shall we?

Two unrelated, remorseful individuals have come forward, whispering to us colleagues with tales of the inner workings and “business practices” of document creation “mills” which may or may not be operating under the direction of foreclosure mill law firm. Permission from the parties has been extracted to publish this post.

Apparently, that same fear, hopelessness, and rage which descend upon one who is evicted from the only home they know to face a bleak and uncertain future……….. Yes, THAT fear, hopelessness and rage! Well, that same emotional response seems to have hit hard on a few past and/or current employees of certain companies which may have been involved in dubious, questionable “business practices”.

A crisis of conscience? Fear of criminal charges? Facing foreclosure themselves? Relative evicted? Family member tenet unexpectedly “trashed out”? Seeing the futility of working out a loan mod? One of the signatories (or employers thereof) who frantically googles the same names over and over and over in a mad search for what is known, what is published?

Could it be one or more of these signatories, while working for a “document solutions” company, have been “transferring property and assets” valued in the multi-billions and ostensibly owned by the top financial institutions in the world? Ron Mehig? Bethany Hood? Linda Green? From New House Title? Cheryl Hodge? Korrell Harp? From Law Offices of David Stern? Scott Anderson? Lori Brown? Barbara Hindman? Lori Brown? Whitney K. Cook? Melissa Flanagan? Lillana Morcan? Liquenda Allotey? Christina Trowbridge? Raquel Smith? Branden Kiel? Beth Cottrell? Twanna Thomas? From DocX? Winona Church? Nancy Reyes? William W. Huffman? Jill Arnold? Shameca Harrison? Kari Marx? Renee Hertzler? Mark Biscof? From LPS? Lorraine Brown?

Who knows? I’m not one to force another to reveal their personal motivations. I enjoy the privacy afforded me by the hard bones of my skull. I often keep my thoughts to myself and extend to others the same respect.

For a short period of time in Florida, pretender lenders and their attorneys had a field day in Florida courts, obtaining foreclosure judgments and title to property based on the flimsiest of evidence. Now courts are aware of many of the problems with these files and lenders can no longer count on a free ride to the foreclosure auction. Below is a sampling of case headnotes from recent circuit court opinions that denied foreclosure. Judges in circuits across the state are now standing up for consumers (or at least for the rule of law) and requiring lenders to prove their right to claim the relief they seek. A sampling of the headnotes follows:

Mortgages — Foreclosure — Stay — Foreclosure action is stayed until mortgagor has been afforded mitigation and modification opportunities of home affordable modification program

Mortgages — Foreclosure — Standing — Motion for final judgment of foreclosure denied — Plaintiff that did not become holder of note until after suit was filed did not have standing to bring action — Even if assignment could confer standing retroactively, assignment is deficient where jurat does not indicate that it was signed in presence of notary, and assignor does not have documented authority to assign mortgage — Further, motion for summary judgment is deficient where supporting affidavit was signed by person whose only demonstrated authority is to assign and release liens, not by individual with corporate authority and demonstrated knowledge.

Mortgages — Foreclosure — Complaint — Plaintiff has failed to state cause of action where partial terms sheet attached to foreclosure complaint omits details as to who gets paid, when and where payment is due, and amount of payment — Further, assignment that is dated after filing of suit is at variance with complaint — Complaint dismissed with leave to amend.

Mortgages — Foreclosure — Standing — Motion to dismiss is granted with leave to file new or amended complaint to allege that plaintiff is owner and holder of note and mortgage and to allege additional facts that support that allegation.

Mortgages — Foreclosure — Where note filed by plaintiff is endorsed but does not name entity to which it is made payable, plaintiff failed to plead in complaint that it is owner of note or mortgage, mortgage names entity other than plaintiff as mortgagee, plaintiff has filed assignment of mortgage executed and recorded after complaint was filed, and complaint does not demonstrate equitable assignment of mortgage to plaintiff before complaint was filed, plaintiff must amend complaint to allege that it is owner and holder of note and mortgage and identify documents upon which it relies to establish that it holds and owns note and mortgage

If you’ve read, are reading, or plan to read Andrew Ross Sorkin’s Too Big To Fail, you also need to pick up a copy of Hank Paulson’s memoir, On The Brink. Sorkin has the bankers’ story, in sordid yet compelling detail, of how they received the most generous bailout in the world financial history during fall 2008 – and set us up for great problems to come. Paulson tells us why, when, and how exactly he let them get away with this.

Hank Paulson does not, of course, intend to be candid. As I review in detail on The New Republic’s The Book site this morning, On The Brink is actually a masterpiece of misdirection and disinformation.

But still, he gives it all away – and if any details remain obscure, check them in Sorkin. Paulson honestly believes that the financial sector as constructed is productive, makes sense, and should continue to operate in roughly its current form.

Whether or not Paulson really understands the functioning of big banks in the US today is an interesting question – for example he never mentions how they treated customers during the boom, and there is not one word about the need for greater consumer protection moving forward. On the other hand, perhaps this omission tells us that he understands the game all too well – and is keen for it to continue.